Currently, a significant number of states are in the process of implementing a high-stakes teacher evaluation (HSTE) system. In many ways, Louisiana’s teacher evaluation system, Compass, is typical of the models that many states have adopted. This article reports the experiences of 37 elementary teachers from five districts across Louisiana after their first 2 years under this system. It is through the multiple lenses of teacher support, autonomy, self-efficacy, and satisfaction that we sought to understand how Compass has shaped teachers’ motivation for improvement as well as their continued commitment to the teaching profession. Analysis of longitudinal interview data reveals a widespread lack of support for change in the form of self-efficacy building experiences—particularly vicarious experiences—for teachers. As a result, many teachers experienced, by the second year, significant negative arousal events and profound losses of satisfaction and commitment to the profession—this despite most being rated as “highly effective.”
AchinsteinB.OgawaR. T.SpeiglmanA. (2004). Are we creating separate and unequal tracks of teachers? The effects of state policy, local conditions, and teacher characteristics on new teacher socialization. American Educational Research Journal, 41, 557-603. doi:10.3102/01623737026003557
2.
AdamsC. M.ForsythP. B.WareJ. K.MwavitaM. (in press). The informational significance of A-F school accountability grades. Teachers College Record.
3.
American Educational Research Association. (2000). AERA position statement on high-stakes testing in Pre-K-12 education. Washington, DC: Author.
Amrein-BeardsleyA. (2006). Methodological concerns about the education value-added system. Educational Researcher, 37(2), 65-75. doi:10.3102/0013189x08316420
6.
Amrein-BeardsleyA.CollinsC. (2012). The SAS education value-added assessment system (SAS-EVAAS) in the Houston Independent School District (HISD): Intended and unintended consequences. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 20(12). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/1096
7.
Amrein-BeardsleyA.CollinsC.PolaskyS. A.SloatE. F. (2013). Value-added model (VAM) research for educational policy: Framing the issue. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 21(4), 1-14. doi:10.14507/epaa.v21n4.2013
8.
BanduraA. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
9.
BanduraA. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.
BormanG. D.DowlingN. M. (2008). Teacher attrition and retention: A meta-analytic and narrative review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 78, 367-409. doi:10.3102/0034654308321455
12.
ChaS.-H.Cohen-VogelL. (2011). Why they quit: A focused look at teachers who leave for other occupations. School Effectiveness and Improvement, 22, 371-392. doi:10.1080/09243453.2011.587437
13.
ChanW.-Y.LauS.NieY.LimS.HoganD. (2008). Organizational and personal predictors of teacher commitment: The mediating role of teacher efficacy and identification with school. American Educational Research Journal, 45, 597-630. doi:10.3102/0002831208318259
14.
CohenD. K. (1990). A revolution in one classroom: The case of Mrs. Oublier. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12, 311-329.
15.
CohenD. K.HillH. (2001). Learning policy: When state education reform works. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
16.
CohenD. K.PeurachD. J.GlazerJ. L.GatesK. E.GoldinS. (2014). Improvement by design: The promise of better schools. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. doi:10.7209/Chicago/9780226089416.001.0001
17.
CohenS.RothbartM.PhillipsS. (1976). Locus of control and the generality of learned helplessness in humans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34(6), 1049-1056. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.34.6.1049
18.
ColemanJ. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95-S120.
19.
CollinsC.Amrein-BeardsleyA. (2014). Putting growth and value-added models on the map: A national overview. Teachers College Record, 116(1). Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentId=17291
20.
CraigC. J. (2009). Research in the midst of organized school reform: Versions of teacher community in tension. American Educational Research Journal, 46, 598-619.
21.
The Danielson Group. (2013). The framework for teaching evaluation instrument. Princeton, NJ: Teachscape.
22.
Darling-HammondL. (2013). Getting teacher evaluation right: What really matters for effectiveness and improvement. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
23.
Darling-HammondL. (2014). One piece of the whole: Teacher evaluation as part of a comprehensive system for teaching and learning. American Educator, 38(1), 4-13.
DayC.SimmonsP.GuQ. (2008). Combining qualitative and quantitative methodologies in research on teachers’ lives, work, and effectiveness: From integration to synergy. Educational Researcher, 37, 330-342. doi:10.3102/0013189x08324091
26.
DeciE. L.KoestnerR.RyanR. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 627-668.
27.
DeciE. L.RyanR. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York, NY: Plenum.
28.
DeciE. L.RyanR. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268.
29.
DeeT. S.JacobB.SchwartzN. L. (2013). The effects of NCLB on school resources and practices. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 35, 252-279. doi:10.3102/0162373712467080
Digest of Education Statistics. (2013). Estimated average annual salary of teachers in public elementary and secondary schools, by state: Selected years, 1969-70 through 2012-13. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
32.
DiPaolaM. F.HoyW. K. (2008). Principals improving instruction: Supervision, evaluation and professional development. Boston, MA: Pearson.
33.
DohertyK. M.JacobsS. (2013). State of the states 2013: Connect the dots: Using evaluations of teacher effectiveness to inform policy and practice. Washington, DC: National Council on Teacher Quality.
34.
DukeD. L. (1990). Developing teacher evaluation systems that promote professional growth. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 4, 131-144.
35.
DukeD. L. (Ed.). (1995). Teacher evaluation policy: From accountability to professional development. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
36.
EbmeierH. (2003). How supervision influences teacher efficacy and commitment: An investigation of a path model. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 18, 110-114.
37.
ElmoreR. F.McLaughlinM. (1982). Strategic choice in federal education policy: The compliance-assistance tradeoff. In LiebermanA.McLaughlinM. W. (Eds.), Policymaking in education, 81st yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (pp. 159-194). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
38.
FengL.FiglioD. N.SassT. (2010). School accountability and teacher mobility (NBER Working Paper 16070). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
39.
FiglioD. N.LoebS. (2011). School accountability. In. HanushekE. A.MachinS.WoessmannL. (Eds.), Handbooks in economics (Vol. 3, pp. 383-421). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North Holland.
40.
FinniganK. S.GrossB. (2007). Do accountability policy sanctions influence teacher motivation? Lessons from Chicago’s low-performing schools. American Educational Research Journal, 44, 594-627. doi:10.3102/0002831207306767
41.
FirestoneW. A. (2014). Teacher evaluation policy and conflicting theories of motivation. Educational Researcher, 43, 100-107. doi:10/3102/0013189x14521864
42.
FirestoneW. A.PennellJ. R. (1993). Teacher commitment, working conditions, and differential incentive policies. Review of Educational Research, 63, 489-525. doi:10.3102/00346543063004489
43.
FirestoneW. A.RosenblumS. (1988). Building commitment in urban high schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 10, 285-299. doi:10.3102/01623737010004285
44.
FirestoneW. A.SchorrR. Y.MonfilsL. F. (Eds.). (2004). The ambiguity of teaching to the test: Standards, assessment, and educational reform. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
45.
FullanM. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
46.
GoodT. (2014). What do we know about how teachers influence student performance on standardized tests, and why do we know so little about other outcomes?Teachers College Record, 116(1). Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentId=17289
47.
GramzowR. H.ElliotA. J.AsherE.McGregorH. A. (2003). Self-evaluation bias and academic performance: Some ways and some reasons why. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 41-61. doi:10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00535-4
48.
GreenP. C.BakerB. C.OluwoleJ. (2012). The legal and policy implications of value-added teacher assessment policies. Brigham Young Education & Law Journal, 1, 1-29.
49.
GuskeyT. (1986). Staff development and the process of teacher change. Educational Researcher, 15(5), 5-12.
50.
HaertelE. H. (2013). Reliability and validity of inferences about teachers based on student test scores. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Retrieved from http://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/PICANG14.pdf
51.
HardyI. (2012). The politics of teacher professional development: Policy, research and practice. New York, NY: Routledge.
52.
HargreavesA. (2003). Teaching in the knowledge society. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
53.
HargreavesA. (2010). Presentism, individualism, and conservatism: The legacy of Dan Lortie’s Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Curriculum Inquiry, 40, 143-154.
54.
HargreavesA.GoodsonI. (2006). Educational change over time? The sustainability and nonsustainability of three decades of secondary school change and continuity. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42, 3-41.
55.
HarrisD. N.HerringtonC. D. (Eds.). (2015). Value added meets the schools: The effects of using test-based teacher evaluation on the work of teachers and leaders [Special issue]. Educational Research, 44(2), 71-141.
56.
HerlihyC.KargerE.PollardC.HillH. C.KraftM. A.WilliamsM.HowardS. (2014). State and local efforts to investigate the validity and reliability of scores from teacher evaluation systems. Teachers College Record, 116(1). Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentId=17292
57.
HermanJ.BakerE. (2009). Assessment policy: Making sense of the babel. In SykesG.SchneiderB.PlankD. N. (with FordT. G.) (Eds.), Handbook on education policy research (pp. 176-190). New York, NY: Routledge.
58.
HessF.McShaneM. Q. (Eds.). (2013). Common Core meets education reform: What it all means for politics, policy, and the future of schooling. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
59.
HillH.KapitulaL.UmlandK. (2011). A validity argument approach to evaluating teacher value-added scores. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 794-831. doi:10.3102/0002831210387916
60.
HincheyP. H. (2010). Getting teacher assessment right: What policymakers can learn from research. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center.
61.
HuangS. L.WaxmanH. C. (2009). The association of school environment to student teachers’ satisfaction and teaching commitment. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 235-243. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2008.07.015
62.
HustonJ. (1989). Teacher burnout and effectiveness: A case study. Education, 110(1), 70-78.
63.
IngersollR. (2003). Who controls teachers? Power and accountability in America’s schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
64.
IngersollR.MerrillL.StuckeyD. (2014). Seven trends: The transformation of the teaching force. Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania.
65.
JenningsJ.CorcoranS. P. (2009). “Beware of geeks bearing formulas”: Reflections on growth models for school accountability. Phi Delta Kappan, 90, 635-639. doi:10.1177/003172170909000906
66.
JohnsonB.ChristensenL. C. (2014). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
67.
JohnsonS. M. (1990). Teachers at work: Achieving success in our schools. New York, NY: Basic Books.
68.
KennedyM. (2005). Inside teaching: How classroom life undermines reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
LavigneA. L. (2014). Exploring the intended and unintended consequences of high-stakes teacher evaluation on schools, teachers, and students. Teachers College Record, 116(1). Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentId=17294
71.
LavigneA. L.GoodT. L. (2014). Teacher and student evaluation: Moving beyond the failure of school reform. New York, NY: Routledge.
72.
LeithwoodK.MenziesT.JantziD. (1994). Earning teachers’ commitment to curricular reform. Peabody Journal of Education, 69(4), 38-61. doi:10.1090/01619569409538785
73.
LoebS.Darling-HammondL.LuczakJ. (2005). How teaching conditions predict teacher turnover in California schools. Peabody Journal of Education, 80(3), 44-70. doi:10.1207/s15327930pje8003_4
74.
LortieD. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. doi:10.1177/019263657505939422
75.
Louisiana Department of Education. (2012). Compass: Louisiana’s path to excellence—Teacher evaluation guidebook. Baton Rouge, LA: Author.
LunenbergF.CadavidV. (1992). Locus of control, pupil control ideology, and dimensions of teacher burnout. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 19, 13-22.
80.
MarshJ. A.SpringerM. G.McCaffreyD. F.YuanK.EpsteinS.KoppichJ.…PengA. (2011). A big apple for educators: New York City’s experiment with schoolwide performance bonuses (MG-1114-FPS). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
McCaffreyD. F.KoretzD.LockwoodJ. R.HamiltonL. S. (2003). Evaluating value-added models for teacher accountability. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
83.
McLaughlinM. W. (1987). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9, 171-178.
84.
McLaughlinM. W. (2006). Implementation research in education: Lessons learned, lingering questions, and new opportunities. In HonigM. I. (Ed.), New directions in policy implementation: Confronting complexity (pp. 209-228). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
85.
McLaughlinM. W.PfeifferR. S. (1988). Teacher evaluation: Improvement, accountability, and effective learning. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
86.
McNeilL. (2000). Contradictions of school reform: Educational costs of standardized testing. New York, NY: Routledge.
MoeA.PazzagliaF.RonconiL. (2010). When being able is not enough: The combined value of positive affect and self-efficacy for job satisfaction in teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1145-1153. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2010.02.010
The New Teacher Project. (2010). Teacher Evaluation 2.0. New York, NY: Author.
94.
NiemiecC. P.RyanR. M. (2009). Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the classroom: Applying self-determination theory to educational practice. Theory and Research in Education, 7, 133-144. doi:10.1177/1477878509104318
95.
OlsenB.SextonD. (2009). Threat rigidity, school reform, and how teachers view their work inside current education policy contexts. American Educational Research Journal, 46, 9-44. doi:10.3102/00028312083320573
96.
PapayJ. P. (2011). Different tests, different answers: The stability of teacher value-added estimates across outcome measures. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 163-193. doi:10.3102/0002831210362589
97.
PearsonL. C.HallB. C. (1993). Initial construct validation of the Teaching Autonomy Scale. Journal of Educational Research, 86, 172-177.
98.
PearsonL. C.MoomawW. (2005). The relationship between teacher autonomy and stress, work satisfaction, empowerment, and professionalism. Educational Research Quarterly, 29(1), 38-54.
99.
PelletierL. G.SharpE. C. (2009). Administrative pressures and teachers’ interpersonal behavior in the classroom. Theory and Research in Education, 7, 174-183. doi:10.1177/1477878509104318
100.
ReeveJ.RyanR. M.DeciE. L.JangH. (2008). Understanding and promoting autonomous self-regulation: A self-determination theory perspective. In SchunkD. H.ZimmermanB. J. (Eds.), Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 223-244). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.
101.
RiceJ. K.MalenB.JacksonC.HoyerK. M. (2015). Time to pay up: Analyzing the motivational potential of financial rewards in a TIF program. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37, 29-49. doi:10.3102/0162373714524622
102.
RichardsonP. W.WattH. M. G. (2006). Who chooses teaching and why?: Profiling characteristics and motivations across three Australian universities. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 34, 27-56. doi:10.1080/13598660500480290
103.
RiehlC.SippleJ. W. (1996). Making the most of time and talent: Secondary school organizational climates, teaching task environments, and teacher commitment. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 873-901. doi:10.3102/00028312033004873
104.
RosenholtzS. J. (1991). Teachers’ workplace: The social organization of schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
105.
RothG.AssorA.Kanat-MaymonY.KaplanH. (2007). Autonomous motivation for teaching: How self-determined teachingmaylead to self-determined learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 761-774.
106.
RyanR. M.BrownK. W. (2005). Legislating competence: The motivational impact of high-stakes testing as an educational reform. In DweckC.ElliotA. (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 354-372). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
107.
RyanR. M.DeciE. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
108.
RyanR. M.WeinsteinN. (2009). Undermining quality teaching and learning: A self-determination theory perspective on high-stakes testing. Theory and Research in Education, 7, 224-233. doi:10.1177/1477878509104327
109.
SchneiderA.IngramH. (1990). Behavioral assumptions of policy tools. Journal of Politics, 52, 510-529.
110.
SchochetP. Z.ChiangH. S. (2010). Error rates in measuring teacher and school performance based on student test score gains (Report No. NCEE 2010-4004). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
111.
ShenJ.LeslieJ. M.SpybrookJ. K.MaX. (2012). Are principal background and school processes related to teacher job satisfaction? A multilevel study using Schools and Staffing Survey 2003-04. American Educational Research Journal, 49, 200-230. doi:10.3102/0002831211419949
112.
SkaalvikE. M.SkaalvikS. (2010). Teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout: A study of relations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1059-1069. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.11.001
113.
SkaalvikE. M.SkaalvikS. (2011). Teacher job satisfaction and motivation to leave the teaching profession: Relations within school context, feeling of belonging, and emotional exhaustion. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 1029-1038. doi:10.1016/j.tate2011.04.001
114.
SkaalvikE. M.SkaalvikS. (2014). Teacher self-efficacy and perceived autonomy: Relations with teacher engagement, job satisfaction, and emotional exhaustion. Psychological Reports, 114, 68-77. doi:10.2466/14.02.PR0.114k14w0
115.
SkinnerB. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York, NY: Macmillan.
116.
SmylieM. (1988). The enhancement function of staff development: Organizational and psychological antecedents to individual and teacher change. American Educational Research Journal, 25, 1-30. doi:10.3102/00028312025001001
117.
SpringerM. G.PaneJ.Vi-NhuanL.McCaffreyD. F.BurnsS. F.HamiltonL. S.StecherB. M. (2012). Team pay for performance: Experimental evidence from the Round Rock Pilot Project on team incentives. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 34, 367-390. doi:10.3102/0162373712439094
118.
Tschannen-MoranM.McMasterP. (2009). Sources of self-efficacy: Four professional development formats and their relationship to self-efficacy and implementation of a new teaching strategy. The Elementary School Journal, 110, 228-245. doi:10.1086/605771
119.
Tschannen-MoranM.Woolfolk HoyA.HoyW. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68, 202-248. doi:10.3102/00346543068002202
120.
VygotskyL. S. (1986). Thought and language (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: MIT Press.
121.
WattH. M. G.RichardsonP. W. (2008). Motivations, perceptions, and aspirations concerning teaching as a career for different types of beginning teachers. Learning and Instruction, 18, 408-428. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.06.002
WeisbergD.SextonS.MulhernJ.KeelingD. (2009). The widget effect: Our national failure to acknowledge and act on differences in teacher effectiveness. Brooklyn, NY: The New Teacher Project.
124.
WhiteK. W.RosenbaumJ. E. (2008). Inside the black box of accountability: How high-stakes accountability alters school culture and the classification and treatment of students and teachers. In SadovinkA. R.O’DayJ.BohrnstedtJ.BormanK. (Eds.), No Child Left Behind and the reduction of the achievement gap: Sociological perspectives on federal educational policy (pp. 97-112). London, England: Routledge.
125.
Woolfolk HoyA.Burke-SperoR. (2005). Changes in teacher efficacy during the early years of teaching: A comparison of four measures. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 343-356. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2005.01.007
126.
YuanK.Vi-NhuanL.McCaffreyD. F.MarshJ. A.HamiltonL. S.StecherB. M.SpringerM. G. (2013). Incentive pay programs do not affect teacher motivation or reported practices: Results from three randomized studies. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 35, 3-22. doi:10.3102/0162373712462625
